Friday, August 25, 2023

Refuting and Exposing Andrew Harrison on Creatio Ex Nihilo and Patristics

      In his recent debate with Connor Smith, Andrew Harrison advocated creatio ex nihilo while Smith defended creatio ex materia. YouTube's algorithm notified me of the debate while it was live and, having previously had informal debates with Harrison on Facebook regarding patristics, I immediately took to critiquing his appeals to the early Christians in the live chat, and then subsequently the comment section. Also in attendance was Travis Morgan, who participated under one of his multiple accounts, yellowblackbird9000, and who I demonstrated in yesterday's blog to be (1) almost completely ignorant of patristics, (2) grossly dishonest, and (3) hypocritical in his attempts to project his own dishonesty onto others. When it comes to the early Church, Harrison takes his cues from Mr. Morgan, which is truly an instance of the blind leading the blind.

    Eventually Harrison decided to block me from his channel so that no one else could see my refutations of his arguments, where he could then safely and disingenuously boast that, "Errol is just upset, because even though he didn’t participate in the debate, he still got destroyed in the comments." This blog shall serve the purpose of setting the record straight and exposing the exchange which Harrison whished to conceal from his viewers. Highlights include...

    • Morgan, true to form, lying in order to misrepresent my position. And yet Harrison decided to protect this lie by hiding my original comment and promote the lie by pinning it in the comment section.

    • Harrison demonstrating his gross ignorance of even elementary patristic study, in this case regarding simple chronology.

    • Harrison thrusting himself into denial over his refusal to concede the debate in the face of the very evidence he asked for. Indeed, this serves as a concise synopsis of the debate itself:

Andrew Harrison: “I would concede this entire debate and say I’m wrong if there’s anything in the Bible that says that matter is eternal or that an early Church Father said, ‘Yes, matter is eternal.’”

Me, citing a Church Father: “For thou hast made manifest the eternal fabric of the world through Thy operations. Thou, Lord, didst create the world.” (Clement of Rome)

Andrew: “You have made Clement contradict [himself] and through your forced interpretation, you create a whole confusing mess. I’ll pass.”

@yellowblackbird9000
PatristicArcana posted that Tertullian says, "scripture doesn't expressly say that all things are made from nothing." (Against Hermogenes, Chapter 21.) Here is what it actually says in the 21st Chapter of Against Hermogenes. "For I maintain that, even if the Scripture has not expressly declared that all things were made out of nothing — just as it abstains (from saying that they were formed) out of Matter — there was no such pressing need for expressly indicating the creation of all things out of nothing, as there was of their creation out of Matter, if that had been their origin. Because, in the case of what is made out of nothing, the very fact of its not being indicated that it was made of any particular thing shows that it was made of nothing; and there is no danger of its being supposed that it was made of anything, when there is no indication at all of what it was made of. In the case, however, of that which is made out of something, unless the very fact be plainly declared, that it was made out of something, there will be danger, until it is shown of what it was made, first of its appearing to be made of nothing, because it is not said of what it was made; and then, should it be of such a nature as to have the appearance of having certainly been made of something, there will be a similar risk of its seeming to have been made of a far different material from the proper one, so long as there is an absence of statement of what it was made of. Then, if God had been unable to make all things of nothing, the Scripture could not possibly have added that He had made all things of nothing: (there could have been no room for such a statement,) but it must by all means have informed us that He had made all things out of Matter, since Matter must have been the source; because the one case was quite to be understood, if it were not actually stated, whereas the other case would be left in doubt unless it were stated." In Chapter 22, Tertullian quite clearly lays out the scriptural support for ex nihilo and the scriptural refutation for ex materia.
4

Last Hour Apologetics
·
@lasthourapologetics4806
@PatristicArcana
Exactly: Tertullian had to indirectly infer creatio ex nihilo from the Scriptures because, “Scripture did not clearly proclaim that all things were made out of nothing.” And hence contradicting any claim on your side that there is explicit endorsement of such a teaching in the Bible; the argument being implicit.
@yellowblackbird9000
Here we see  @PatristicArcana  futility attempt to justify his gross abuse of the text by appealing to a explict/implict distinction thereby moving the goalposts from his original assertion and proving his dishonesty.
3
@PatristicArcana
And once again  @yellowblackbird9000  is reduced to knowingly misrepresenting my argument. I clearly stated from the start that Tertullian admitted that there was no EXPLICIT support from the Scriptures for creatio ex nihilo which anyone can see elsewhere in the comment section, and which, as we've seen, is in fact the case. But such intellectual dishonestly is what we've come to expect from him. Or does he actually imagine that Tertullian contradicted himself, on the one hand admitting that, “Scripture did not clearly proclaim that all things were made out of nothing,” and then going on to demonstrate that Scriptures clearly proclaim that all things are made out of nothing? And the fact that Andrew Harrison found his friend's argument on this to be compelling only further demonstrates how ill equipped he is to comment on patristic thought.
2
@yellowblackbird9000
​ @PatristicArcana No, you clearly stated that Tertullian did not believe ex nihilo was in the Bible. You made no mention of anything explicit or implicit. And so Tertullian refutes your abuse of his work and hilarious quotation of half a sentence. You are a liar.
1
@PatristicArcana
I’m not sure who  @yellowblackbird9000  thinks he’s fooling when my original post is available for everyone to see, wherein I said, and I quote, “[Tertullian] admitted that his position is not explicitly supported by Scripture.” And thus we see that it is he who is the liar; sadly common among the anti-Saints.
@jwjbros7926
​ @PatristicArcana your expecting too much from him. He won't really engage with your main points but just throws red herrings.
2
@yellowblackbird9000
 @jwjbros7926  More bluster from a sycophant. I've addressed everything he's said and refuted him point for point.
@PatristicArcana
You sound more and more like one of Travis Morgan's YouTube accounts,  @yellowblackbird9000 . Should that be the case, it would explain why you confuse lying about my previous statements without being able to give a citation with supposedly having "refuted" me. As a reminder of what it actually looks like to both refute someone's argument and expose them as a consistent liar, confer with my documentation of the exchanges I had with Mr. Morgan regarding his claims about Gregory Thaumaturgus and his subsequent denials.
1
@jwjbros7926
​ @yellowblackbird9000 it's your reading comprehension. There's not much I can do.
1
@jwjbros7926

@PatristicArcana
Favorite part of the debate… Connor Smith: “Who came first: Justin Martyr or Tertullian? Andrew Harrison: “I don’t actually agree with that question.” Connor: “I’m not sure how you can disagree with a question.” Andrew: “[That] Justin Martyr did not agree with or teach creation from nothing. . . . Well, obviously Tertullian came first.” Connor: “Tertullian came first?” Andrew: “Yes.” Connor: “Okay, when did Tertullian . . . let’s see, what was the name of the book that you quoted from Tertullian?” Andrew: “His Dialogue with Typho the Jew. [I] think that’s how you pronounce his name.” (No, it isn’t; it’s Trypho, with an ‘r,’ and that was the work written by Justin, not Tertullian.) Connor: “Uh, let’s see . . . Just trying to find out the-” Andrew: “Wait a minute, did I say Tertullian came first? I meant Justin Martyr came first. Sorry; my bad.”
1

@PatristicArcana
Even Tertullian, a proponent of creatio ex nihilo, admitted that his position is not explicitly supported by Scripture: “Scripture did not clearly proclaim that all things were made out of nothing” (Tertullian, ca. 202, Treatise Against Hermogenes 21.2, in Ancient Christian Writers 24.55) While another proponent of creatio ex nihilo admitted that many predecessors in the Church had held to creatio ex materia: “This matter, then, . . . I do not understand how so many and such distinguished men have held it to be uncreated, that is, not made by God himself, the creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should find fault with those who deny that God is the maker of the universe or his providential administration of it, and accuse of impiety those who think that such a great work as the world could exist without a maker or overseer, while they themselves incur a similar charge for saying that matter is uncreated and coeternal with the uncreated God.” (Origen, ca. 229, On First Principles 2.1.4, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 27.151) And again: “For your all-powerful hand, it says, that created the world out of formless matter, was not at a loss to send out on them a multitude of bears or fierce lions. [Wisdom of Solomon 11:17] Very many, indeed, reckon that the matter of things itself is signified in that which is written in the beginning of Genesis by Moses, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible and unordered; [Genesis 1:1] for by this invisible and unordered earth, Moses seems to them to indicate nothing else but unformed matter. But if this is truly matter, it is evident then that the first principles of bodies are not incapable of change. For those who posited atoms—either those which cannot be divided into parts, or those which are divided into equal parts, or any one element as the first principles of bodily things—were not able to place among the first principles the word ‘matter’, that is, that which primarily signifies matter. Nor, if they think matter lies beneath every body, as a substance convertible or changeable or divisible throughout all its parts, will they think it lies beneath, according to its own proper character, without qualities. With them we agree, we who in every way deny that matter should be spoken of as ‘unbegotten’ or ‘uncreated’, in conformity with what we have shown as far as we were able in the preceding pages, when we pointed out that . . . . bodily substance is changeable and may pass from one quality into any others.” (Origen, ca. 229, On First Principles 4.4.6, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 28.573-575)

@austinwilson1765
Ex Nihilo and it isn't even close.
1

Last Hour Apologetics
·
@PatristicArcana
That's what I was taught growing up as a Lutheran. But tell that to those among the early Christians who understood the Scriptures to teach creatio ex materia, like Justin Martyr.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @PatristicArcana , you mean tell the scholars you quote mine and misuse to make them assume Justin taught ex matria? Oh you know, let’s just forget about the other people during Justin’s generation that clearly taught ex nihilo. While we are at it, let’s just assume our beliefs,..that totally works. I like the part we’re Justin said, “matter is eternal making itself equal with God.” Oh wait, Leslie Barnard in his book on Justin Martyr, “It is idle to speculate how Justin interpreted Genesis 1:1. . . . It is equally uncertain whether Justin believed in the eternity of matter in the Platonic sense as an antithesis to God” (Justin Martyr, 112). But Errol gets to make that decision, because he said Justin did believe it yet has no evidence for it. But wait, “[Souls] are not then immortal?” Justin replies, “No, since the world has appeared to us to be begotten” (Dialogue with Trypho, 5). This is evidence that Justin saw the world as something that was not co-eternal with God but something He created. Still waiting in the phrase “matter is eternal” or something similar to prove your case :)
2
@PatristicArcana
Originally,  @lasthourapologetics4806 , you appealed to Augustine—who wrote over 200 years after Justin Martyr—and read his theory of two stages of creation back into the pre-Nicene writers at large. Now you accuse me of misusing Barnard's scholarship when you've failed to respond to either of the quotations I gave from his 1997 work and instead appeal to his 1967 work. So let's look at some additional context from his earlier work and see who's really misusing him. Regarding the idea that Justin believed in creatio ex nihilo: "in neither of these passages does Justin state whether matter . . . was itself a creation of God in an unformed state which he then used to create the material world." (Leslie William Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thoughts, pp. 111-112) And, more to the point: "A creation ex nihilo does not come within his purview." (Ibid., pg. 113) Well so much for your interpretation of his Dialogue With Trypho. And nor would Latter-day Saints argue that matter is an antithesis to God, but the fact that Justin otherwise favorably compared Moses' understanding to Plato's is the only other clue we get on the subject, and it leans in favor matter as eternal as per Middle Platonism, which brings us back to the other patristic scholars I cited: “At 1A[pology] 59.5 Justin says that Plato learnt from Gen. 1:3 (‘God said: ‘let there be light’’) that ‘the whole world came into being by a word of God (λόγῳ θεοῦ) out of the previously existing things mentioned by Moses’—that is, from the formless matter indicated by the invisible and unorganized earth referred to in Gen. 1:2.” (Dennis Minns & Paul Parvis, Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:62) And let's be honest, even if I could show you Justin explicitly proclaiming this matter to be eternal, would you really be any more receptive to that then you were to Clement who, within the context of God's creation of the world, said that the, "fabric of the world," is, "eternal"? And that after you'd already said, “I would concede this entire debate and say I’m wrong if there’s anything in the Bible that says that matter is eternal or that an early Church Father said, ‘Yes, matter is eternal.’”
1
@jwjbros7926
​@PatristicArcana that Clement quote is the icing on the cake. Still waiting for a reply.
2
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926  my reply to him is down below. It isn’t such an icing on the cake unless your confirmation bias is the cake itself.
1
@jwjbros7926
​@lasthourapologetics4806 but you said you will concede if there's a statement from any ECF that said matter was eternal in the debate and Errol provided with Clement. So I don't know how you kept your promise. Maybe the promise was only to Connor and not Errol.
2
@PatristicArcana
He admitted that he found my appeal to Clement confusing,  @jwjbros7926 , therefore it must be “confirmation bias.” But what can we expect from someone who continues to take his cues on patristics from the likes of Travis Morgan?
@jwjbros7926
 @lasthourapologetics4806  The confirmation bias is on your part that's why you can only quote Trinitarian scholars to support creation ex-nihilo. Try using a non Trinitarian scholar for once. Would you like it if I quote an LDS scholar? I think not.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926  Concerning you scholars comment: That’s a nice fallacy you got going on right there, do you know what fallacy I’m referring to?
1
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926 , I said in my rebuttal: “As for the patristic fathers, I challenge Connor to find me where Justin martyr, or any of the other fathers he quoted, say that 👉🏻matter has its existence apart from God 👈🏻 or that it is eternal.” You and Errol are just cherry picking what I said. I narrowed down on one aspect of my rebuttal speech in hopes that Connor would respond and provide evidence and he didn’t. Errol is just upset, because even though he didn’t participate in the debate, he still got destroyed in the comments.
1
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926  also would you want to come on my channel and debate your view of creation? Maybe you’ll be able to do a little better than you’re doing now. Will you accept my challenge? The debate topic: Is Mormon Creationism Biblical?
@jwjbros7926
 @lasthourapologetics4806  do you know what type of bias you are demonstrating by quoting only your Trinitarian scholars? You will never catch us quoting from LDS scholars in support of our position.
@jwjbros7926
 @lasthourapologetics4806  I don't support priestcraft. But I know someone who would love to debate you but you will say no, Robert Boyland.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926  *Boylan I was looking forward to his debate with Atkins and of course, he backed out. If boylan wants to debate me, a layman, go tell him. I just don’t like how he treats people. To bad he doesn’t debate many theologians and scholars, though. From what I’ve seen of him, I can see him holding his ground. But maybe he prefers low hanging fruit. However, my challenge was for you. If you don’t care to debate that’s fine, but I figured you would want to given our discussion.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926 , “do you know what type of bias you are demonstrating by quoting only or Trinitarian scholars?” I’m assuming you don’t know what fallacy you’re committing correct? Try to prove the book of Mormon is true or the golden plates existed without appealing to LDS scholars ;) I don’t think you understand what you’re really trying to argue here. I feel like you’re just throwing shade.
@jwjbros7926
@lasthourapologetics4806  I would never appeal to LDS scholars to confirm the BOM. It's called confirmation bias, something that Trinitarians resort to.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926  , that’s not confirmation bias. Again your fallacies are atrocious. I’m sorry that your LDS scholars haven’t a bone to pick in the scholarly world that you have to be biased against the Trinitarian scholarship just cause. That’s called confirmation bias, by ignoring scholarship, because they hold to a specific view contrary to you. I know for a fact, you could not prove the book of Mormon, or the golden plates exist without appealing to LDS scholarship. If you can, do it right now. I can’t wait ;)
@jwjbros7926
@lasthourapologetics4806  Can you just name one modern-day non-Trinitarian scholar that supports creation ex-nihilo using modern and updated scholarship? Why is it that LDS folks can refer to non LDS scholars for support and you can't find one Non-Trinitarian scholars. The consensus of scholars affirm creation ex materia becuase of the evidence. The confirmation bias is on you because you have no one outside your paradigm bubble to support you. Dont you think your argument has more credibility and add more strength if non- Trinitarians support your position. Don't try to go off topic. The key issue is whether creation ex nihilo was taught. prior to the middle of the second century. We did not disregard your source but we are claiming many of your sources are from the middle of the second century when creation ex-nihilo was accepted according to the evidence prior to that by Trinitarian and non Trinitarian scholars. I did not disregard the 2 Maccabees quote, which is prior to the Christian Era, because the term " out of nothing" is used to describe preexisting matter that does not have form and function. That is what the greeks define as out of nothing. So you are reading it anachronistically. You can show how it's not because I can show you within the Greek literature during and before Maccabees that the teem of nothing means creation from preexisting matter that does not have form and function. Is it wrong to disregard outdated scholarship which you are espousing? How is that confirmation bias when we can prove that it's outdated ?
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926 . Wow, talk about projection and deflection. Are you unable to provide me non LDS scholarship on the BOM and the golden plates validity? Keep on deflecting. You’re the one bringing up stipulations that one can’t use certain scholars because they believe in something unrelated. This is a creation debate, not a trinity debate. This proves to me that you have literally no ground to stand on. It’s a non sequitur and a guilt by association fallacy. It’s also like me saying “find me one secular scholar that says Jesus rose from the dead.” Your argument is bogus. On top of that, I didn’t rely on 2 Mac, I quoted Judith that says the waters (unformed matter) was created. I quoted the Qumran community, 110BC. I used many sources, and I guarantee you haven’t even read one, much less know which scholars I used. Instead of dealing with the facts, you right them off because of a separate belief. Most of the scholars I used were OT scholars and since you’ve effectively written them off for their beliefs, that leaves barely anyone at all for anything. You’re biases are atrocious. You can’t just wave your hand and dismiss the bulk of biblical scholarship because they’re trinitarians. How desperate are you wanting to look by making such a claim? I reject your argument, it’s bias, ignorant, and baseless.
@PatristicArcana
Did you seriously just tell someone, "I used many sources, and I guarantee you haven’t even read one,"  @lasthourapologetics4806 ; you who is dependent on Travis Morgan's google searches to stay (mis)informed on patristics? Please tell me that you at least read Tertullian's treatise Against Hermogenes in its entirety before this debate; because I have, which is why I knew that Tertullian admitted that there were no Scriptures which explicitly teach creatio ex materia, viz., “Scripture did not clearly proclaim that all things were made out of nothing,” which you were clearly unaware of and demonstrated yourself incapable of responding to. Have you read Origen's series On First Principles in its entirety? I have, which is how I knew that he admitted that, "so many and such distinguished men have held [matter] to be uncreated, that is, not made by God himself," and again, " For your all-powerful hand, it says, that created the world out of formless matter, was not at a loss to send out on them a multitude of bears or fierce lions. [Wisdom of Solomon 11.17] Very many, indeed, reckon that the matter of things itself is signified in that which is written in the beginning of Genesis by Moses, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible and unordered; [Genesis 1:1] for by this invisible and unordered earth, Moses seems to them to indicate nothing else but unformed matter," all of which you showed yourself to be completely unfamiliar with and incapable of responding to. Have you read Justin Martyr's First Apology in its entirety? I have, four times, each using a different translation, along with the scholarly commentary, which is why I knew that Barnard noted in both the work I cited and the work you quote-mined that, "A creation ex nihilo does not come within his purview," which you showed yourself to be completely unaware of and incapable of responding to. Have you read Clement's letter To the Corinthians in its entirety? I have, six times, each using a different translation, which is why I knew that within the context of Creation he referred to, "the eternal fabric of the world," which you were clearly oblivious to when you said, “I would concede this entire debate and say I’m wrong if . . . an early Church Father said, ‘Yes, matter is eternal,’” and to which you demonstrated yourself incapable of giving any direct or coherent response. But that's one of the best parts about these public exchanges with you and Mr. Morgan: I can count on any objective person who comes along to be able to rightly judge for themselves who truly, "got destroyed in the comments."

@paulbenjamin1221
What happened with the Trinity debate?

Last Hour Apologetics
·
@lasthourapologetics4806
Who was I suppose to be debating? I’ve had a few trinity debates
@paulbenjamin1221
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @paulbenjamin1221  that already happened. It’s on another channel.
1
@paulbenjamin1221
 @lasthourapologetics4806  I recommend, and take this with a grain of salt, that you upload your recording of it too just in case Jacob ever deletes his. I am just a rando on the internet tho lol
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @paulbenjamin1221 , it’s uploaded on the gospel truth channel, that’s where it was filmed. So it won’t get deleted. I may upload it on here in future but I don’t think I did good, I’m hoping to challenge him again in the future. I let my nerves get to me to much haha.
1
@jwjbros7926
​ @lasthourapologetics4806 he destroyed your arguments with basic questions and answers so I see no reason why he would delete it.
1
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @jwjbros7926 , you keep deflecting, why? Funny how the person on the same side says they destroyed the other side. Almost like you have a ridiculous amount of confirmation bias 😂 Consider this my last reply. At this point, you’re just saying whatever to try and undermine my beliefs, “just cause.” There’s no substance in what you’re arguing.



@PatristicArcana
A potential reference to the eternality of the matter used in creation from a source even earlier than Justin Martyr:
“For thou hast made manifest the eternal fabric of the world through Thy operations. Thou, Lord, didst create the world.”
(Clement of Rome, ca. 96, To the Corinthians 60.1, in Fathers of the Church 1.55)
1

Last Hour Apologetics
·
@lasthourapologetics4806
1Clem 59:3 [Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation. Explain to me, Errol, how God can be the primary/original source of all creation when the true source is also from matter? It seems like your interpretation makes Clement contradict himself. Nice proof text, though.
3
@PatristicArcana
You asked for an instance in which one of the Fathers referred to the material from which the world was made as “eternal,”  @lasthourapologetics4806 , so I provided you one. The answer to what you imagine to be a conundrum is painfully obvious: the matter didn’t form itself into the world; rather God acted upon it in order to create the world, because that’s how creatio ex materia works.
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @PatristicArcana yes and no, I said in my response to Connor exactly this: “As for the patristic fathers, I challenge Connor to find me where Justin martyr, or any of the other fathers he quoted, say that 👉🏻matter has its existence apart from God 👈🏻 or that it is eternal.” You have not answered anything by your quote mining. You have made Clement contradict and through your forced interpretation, you create a whole confusing mess. I’ll pass.
2
@PatristicArcana
You probably should pass,  @lasthourapologetics4806 , if you think it's confusing that God is the primary source of creation when He acts upon inert matter in order to have wrought His act of creation. The fact remains: some of the early Christians did believe in creatio ex materia, and especially among the earlier generations, which is why later generations would go on to say things like this: “This matter, then, . . . I do not understand how so many and such distinguished men have held it to be uncreated, that is, not made by God himself, the creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should find fault with those who deny that God is the maker of the universe or his providential administration of it, and accuse of impiety those who think that such a great work as the world could exist without a maker or overseer, while they themselves incur a similar charge for saying that matter is uncreated and coeternal with the uncreated God.” (Origen, ca. 229, On First Principles 2.1.4, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 27.151)
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @PatristicArcana , if both God and matter are eternal, and just like tertullian, when he said that Hermogenes’ view was heretical because it put matter on the same level as God, the same is said to you. We find no such writings from any church father of being so inconsistent as to call one person a heretic for believing in creation from matter, and yet respect another person who did the same! That’s complete nonsense. Your reading what you want into everything. If God is the primary source then by necessity, he had to create the matter or the matter had to be contingent on Him for its existence. Matter would then be the primary source because without it, God couldn’t act. Matter is the very make up of the universe. Its the primary foundation and source. Your just being inconsistent, and creating even more problems. It’s clear by origins comment that he isn’t referring to people like Justin. Such esteemed Christian fathers don’t fit the descriptions in the latter part of the quote. Unless you have proof that he talking about Justin, though. Which I know you don’t…
2
@PatristicArcana
Oh, so the patristic scholars I cited are reading what I want into Justin Martyr,  @lasthourapologetics4806 ? Give me a break. Do you honestly imagine that Justin Martyr wouldn't, "find fault with those who deny that God is the maker of the universe or his providential administration of it, and accuse of impiety those who think that such a great work as the world could exist without a maker or overseer"? You want yet further evidence that you're wrong? Here you go: “For your all-powerful hand, it says, that created the world out of formless matter, was not at a loss to send out on them a multitude of bears or fierce lions. [Wisdom of Solomon 11.17] Very many, indeed, reckon that the matter of things itself is signified in that which is written in the beginning of Genesis by Moses, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible and unordered; [Genesis 1.1] for by this invisible and unordered earth, Moses seems to them to indicate nothing else but unformed matter. But if this is truly matter, it is evident then that the first principles of bodies are not incapable of change. For those who posited atoms—either those which cannot be divided into parts, or those which are divided into equal parts, or any one element as the first principles of bodily things—were not able to place among the first principles the word ‘matter’, that is, that which primarily signifies matter. Nor, if they think matter lies beneath every body, as a substance convertible or changeable or divisible throughout all its parts, will they think it lies beneath, according to its own proper character, without qualities. With them we agree, we who in every way deny that matter should be spoken of as ‘unbegotten’ or ‘uncreated’, in conformity with what we have shown as far as we were able in the preceding pages, when we pointed out that . . . . bodily substance is changeable and may pass from one quality into any others.” (Origen, ca. 229, On First Principles 4.4.6, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 28.573-575) And thus your argument collapses under its own weight. It's painfully obvious that in the two earliest centuries there were Christians who believed in creatio ex materia. That includes Justin Martyr, as we've seen. Hermogenes is a different story as he took his teachings on this beyond anything Justin taught and indeed straight into the heretical: "God was said to have formed the world, and from it were derived both evil and the human soul" (Michael McHugh), or, as another patristic scholar put it, "The soul also derives from matter and not from the breath of God" (Emanuela Prinzivalli). Tertullian took exception to that, and rightly so.
1

@PatristicArcana
Given that Justin Martyr clearly argued for God creating the world out of unformed matter, and never mentioned that there were two creations (the first ex nihilo, then subsequently ex materia), then it does not follow that the burden of proof is on the Latter-day Saint proponent to show that Justin believed matter to be eternal, but rather the burden of proof is on Andrew to show that Justin believed matter to be transient. The last time I saw a patristic scholar advocate the two-creations hypothesis was Thomas Falls in 1948. Modern patristic scholarship, conversely, gives us this: “This [i.e., First Apology 10] is one of the few passages in which Justin states that God created the world out of unformed matter; cf. 1 Apol. 59, 67. Justin appears to have had no particular theory of the origin and nature of matter but is content to accept Gen 1 as it stands and to see in it no conflict with Middle Platonist teaching. . . . It is also possible that his reference to ‘unformed’ matter may owe something to Wisd. of Sol. 11.17.” (Leslie William Barnard, Ancient Christian Writers 56.113) And again: “There is no suggestion in this passage [i.e., First Apology 59] that Justin is criticizing the Platonic doctrine of the eternity of matter . . . . Justin, in fact, mentions formless matter only (cf. Wisd. of Sol. 11.17) in order to emphasize that it was accepted by Moses in Gn 1.1-3, and that, for both Moses and Plato, God had brought the Universe into existence by working on, and changing, formless matter. It is idle to speculate how Justin interpreted Gn 1:1. He is content to accept the text as it stands and to see in it no conflict with the teaching he had received from Middle Platonism (Andresen, 165). . . . A creation ex nihilo does not come within his purview.” (Ibid., pp. 168-169) And yet again: “At 1A[pology] 59.5 Justin says that Plato learnt from Gen. 1:3 (‘God said: ‘let there be light’’) that ‘the whole world came into being by a word of God (λόγῳ θεοῦ) out of the previously existing things mentioned by Moses’—that is, from the formless matter indicated by the invisible and unorganized earth referred to in Gen. 1:2.” (Dennis Minns & Paul Parvis, Oxford Early Christian Texts 11.62)
2

Last Hour Apologetics
·
@lasthourapologetics4806
Hey, Errol. The burden of proof, to an extent, is on me. That is why I made many attempts to highlight that there is a clearly defined belief for creation from nothing from most church fathers, including those who were influenced by Justin. What is even more important, is that even in the church fathers who do not espouse creation from nothing as clearly, do not say matter is also eternal or independent from God. So in that sense, the burden of proof is on you if you dare claim he believed that. I said in my rebuttal: “As for the patristic fathers, I challenge Connor to find me where Justin martyr, or any of the other fathers he quoted, say that 👉🏻matter has its existence apart from God 👈🏻 or that it is eternal.” Connor did not provide that, neither did you. We can throw scholars at each other day in and day out, but you do not have support with the scriptures, nor the early fathers.
4
@yellowblackbird9000
Watching a Mormon appeal to neo-platonism for truth while also claiming Greek philosophy causes the great apostasy is... special. 😂
3
@lasthourapologetics4806
 @yellowblackbird9000 . It’s truly mind boggling, ain’t it? Haha Shows the lengths for what their conformation bias looks like.
1
@PatristicArcana
Nice strawman argument,  @yellowblackbird9000 . Where did I say that Greek philosophy caused the Apostasy? I didn’t, but since you’re manifestly not capable of responding to the argument that I actually made, what else can you do? As I repeatedly noted in the livechat, Justin accused Plato of cribbing from Moses on this point.
@yellowblackbird9000
@PatristicArcana  You mean like the quote you kept posting from Tertullian that was badly out of context?
2
@PatristicArcana
Are you being deliberately obtuse,  @lasthourapologetics4806 ? My argument is already supported by the three modern patristic scholars I cited who verify that (1) Justin Martyr believed that God created the world ex materia, (2) that this was in accordance with Middle Platonism which teaches that mater is eternal, and even that (3) "A creation ex nihilo does not come within his purview.” Paul Copan isn't even a patristic scholar. So what modern patristic scholars do you actually have in support of your interpretation of Justin? So far I'm not sure that you can trade scholars with me on this point.
1
@yellowblackbird9000
​@PatristicArcana Yeah Justin also thought that Aristotle and Plato were Christians because of their philosophy so... congratulations, you wrecked yourself.
2
@PatristicArcana
Clement of Alexandria also thought some of the philosophers to be a sort of proto-Christians, too,  @yellowblackbird9000 . That you think that means I "wrecked" myself only shows how poor a grasp you have of the situation given the universal early Christian belief in the intermediate state of the dead and its implications here. As for Tertullian, let's review the fact that he taught that creatio ex nihilo had no explicit Scriptural support: “Scripture did not clearly proclaim that all things were made out of nothing” (Tertullian, ca. 202, Treatise Against Hermogenes 21.2, in Ancient Christian Writers 24.55) And I've already elsewhere bested your feeble attempt to argue that this was taken out of context, Tertullian maintaining that his position can be indirectly inferred not doing anything to help your case. Got anything else?
@jwjbros7926
​@PatristicArcana that seems to be the trend for modern Trinitarians and that's to use outdated evidence in support of their creation ex-nihilo by their own Trinitarian scholars( bias source).
@yellowblackbird9000
 @jwjbros7926  What a goofy accusation. Ex nihilo is well attested throughout the history of Christianity. "New" evidence has done nothing to change that.
@PatristicArcana
It's anything but, "goofy,"  @yellowblackbird9000 , considering that I've lost count of how many times Roman Catholics and even Protestants attempted to use obsolete scholarship in support of their arguments. For instance: in the 19th century it was thought that The Declaration of Faith had been written by Gregory Thaumaturgus, but in the 20th century patristic scholars reached the consensus that the writing is actually spurious. And yet to this day proponents of Athanasian Trinitarianism can still be found appealing to the writing as if it were authentic and not the forgery it is. Etc.
@yellowblackbird9000
@PatristicArcana  Similarly, some of the writings of Ignatius that affirm apostolic succession and describe the relationship between the Father and Son in ways that are very much Trinitarian have been found to be authentic after hundreds of years of being thought spurious. So, pot meet kettle. At the end of the day, you know that ex nihilo was a view held by many in the early church and was also a view held by many Jews before Christ. Are you honest enough to at least admit that?
2
@PatristicArcana
Patristic scholars have long concluded that only the medium recensions of the seven Ignatian letters are genuine,  @yellowblackbird9000 . Cite your sources. Also demonstrate where I or Latter-day Saint scholars appealed to works which were known to be spurious as if they were genuine. Otherwise, my previous comment was an instance of the silverware calling the kettle black. Are you honest enough to admit that you were wrong when you accused me of lying about Tertullian, and acknowledge that I had started by qualifying my statement that he admitted that the Scriptures don't teach creatio ex nihilo by noting that they did not explicitly do so? For my part, I have long took the position that the early Christians were split on this point of the creation debate. Specifically, I'd say that by the end of the 2nd century creatio ex nihilo was the prevailing view.
1
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

On the Reformationist Misunderstanding of Justification in Clement of Rome

     When pressed to find a historical witness for their Scriptural interpretation of sola fide, Reformers' go-to source has long been C...